rayz wrote: »
Why would a kidnapper put the location of his victim in his phone? Is he likely to forget?
the FBI wants a "golden key". that's a bad idea for several reasons:
...also, his analogy to an neighborhood of un-stormable apartments is a "false analogy", since personal devices aren't akin to living in a police-proof neighborhood.
Yes. Yes I would like to live in that neighborhood.
I'd like to have that trunk and that house.
But while the physical world doesn't work that way, electronic technology has gotten us to the point that most people can have computers that can store data that way. And it is a major advance in human achievement that individuals have access to encryption that only governments once had.
When the Constitution was written, the only way to eavesdrop on someone was to stand within earshot, and the Founding Fathers still wrote a constitution that protects individuals from the government. If you wanted to have a private conversation, you could take a walk to the middle of a field, and be certain that no one could hear you. Now they can monitor you in ways that were literally unimaginable then, they don't have to send someone to stand nearby when you're talking, and they can monitor you secretly, you can't know if someone is listening. It's about time we got some of that protection back, and strong encryption properly implemented can give that to us.
The FBI director can f*ck off. And the American people need to stop being scared of "terrorists" - the real terrorists are people like this FBI director, people who would destroy our rights if they get a chance.
James Comey is an ass.
The logical conclusion of his argument is to make it mandatory for everyone to wear microphones and video cameras 24 hours a day wherever they are, so that the government can check that they're not terrorists or other criminals.
I wouldn't be surprised to see him complaining that the government has no access to our thoughts.
The USA has forgotten what liberty is.
says somebody from a country where CCTV is acceptable public policy everywhere -- despite the data showing it doesn't even deter crime...hmm
If they have physical possession of your device, they should be able to crack it with enough effort. For instance, they could break open the A8 chip and, with the right equipment, directly look inside the secure enclave to see the encryption key that's physically stored there. This would require a lot of work and sophistication, but shouldn't be impossible.
“But if we’d been tracking all your phones more closely, we would have found the guy trying to break into the White House before he got there!”OR
“You have to let us track your phones; what if it’d been your house he broke into?”
The answer to the latter, of course, is “I would have shot him in the chest; problem solved.” " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
they do - unlock or go to jail for contempt.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
(Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790)
but its true -- we have the right not to incriminate ourselves. don't like it, move to Iran or China -- you'll love it there.
here, our minds are our own. the smartphone bears a closer analogy to the mind than it does a trunk or apartment. "smart" = brain = mind.
What's changed is that that definition of "lawful" is now being subject to scrutiny. A 9-0 SCOTUS ruling recently determined that fishing expeditions through someone's smartphone are not legal, they'll need a warrant first, and that warrant will have to spell out the probable cause.
But you just chastised me in another post that the person ordered to unlock their phone could simply claim a fifth amendment against self incrimination and not provide the passcode. So you CAN be jailed for exercising their rights? So which is it?
It's been nagging at me ever since I first saw Comey on TV that he looked familiar. It just dawned on me that he bears a physical and philosophical resemblance to John Ashcroft, the first attorney general in Dubya's administration.
"The FBI director pledged that his organization does not do any electronic surveillance without a court order. A federal judge must agree that the person being spied upon is likely a terrorist, an agent of foreign power, or a serious criminal."'It is an extremely burdensome process,' he said. 'And I like it that way.'"
Sorry Mr. Comey. You and Ashcroft have been major players in overreaching surveillance abuses related to the Patriot Act. You have both lost the trust of the people, and your actions outweigh your good words,
As a sociologist named Miki Kashtan wrote a couple years ago in Psychology Today, "Part of the paradox of trust is that, more often than not, if I don't trust someone, they probably don't trust me, either."
And that's where the public is today with respect to law enforcement, Mr. Comey. It's a mess of your own making. Regaining trust will be very difficult for you.
This is a weakness in Touch ID compared to a memorized passcode. You can be compelled to give a fingerprint and other physical evidence. You can't be compelled, under the Fifth Amendment, to give up the contents of your mind to use against yourself in most cases.
It's important to recognize a meaningful difference between an encryption key and a physical key: providing a key from memory is testimony that you control that data. It's possible for an incapacitated person's fingerprint to be used without their knowledge.
there is a time limit on Touch ID. after a power-off or a few days a passcode is required.
says somebody from a country where CCTV is acceptable public policy everywhere...(despite the data showing it doesn't even deter crime!)
I never said the UK was any better, as it wasn't the topic of the article. But you knew that, of course, and just wanted to get your little jab in. Well done.
What's changed is that the definition of lawful is now being subject to scrutiny. As the SCOTUS recently r
Yeah, all this dancing around the truth with clever little gotcha’s. The truth of the matter is that, even with a valid search warrant, the owner of the device can simply refuse to unlock it and there’s nothing authorities can do about it except hold the owner in contempt. And then the owner can likely use the fifth amendment to get out of the contempt charge. So, bottom line a drug dealer can safely keep a complete list of his suppliers and customers on his mobile device or computer and there’s no way the police can get that information. Just wonderful.
Regardless, you can't argue that having more tools wouldn't save someone from a life-threatening situation. Again, no need to be black-and-white. There really is a new frontier here that needs to be discussed (i.e., not just written off as something we've already figured out).
no it doesn't. its an old frontier, just a new implementation.
"having more tools" is code for giving govt the keys to the castle -- which they violate, over and over.
banning automobiles will certainly save lives. without a doubt, it would make us all inherently safer. so why not ban cars? oh, because you like your freedom to drive, thats why. same thing here.
but the question he asked is what sort of local-only data would be on a phone? that murderer was busted due to DNA evidence in additional to cell tower data (non-local):